Content area
Full text
Schools should have zero tolerance for any policy that treats all students the same, according to Mr Currin and Mr. Mendler, who propose a better approach.
ZERO TOLERANCE is another example of the road to hell paved with good intentions. What was originally intended as a policy to improve safety in school by ensuring that all children -- regardless of race, athletic ability, or parental influence -- follow the rules is used now as an excuse to treat all children the same when they are in need of corrective measures. Schools should have zero tolerance for the idea of doing anything that treats all students the same. One size does not and cannot fit all. The well-investigated research of Russ Skiba and Reece Peterson clearly demonstrates just how ineffective and full of false assumptions the concept of zero tolerance is.1
We agree that zero tolerance sends a powerful message to the school community that violent, aggressive behavior will not be tolerated. We need strong, effective policies to protect our students and to help them feel safe. However, zero tolerance, despite its appearance of fairness, is inherently an unfair policy. A doctor is not fair if he prescribes chemotherapy for two patients with headaches -- one with a brain tumor and the other with a sinus condition -- regardless of the similarity of symptoms. When two students in school throw a pencil -- one because he has finished his assignment and is bored, the other because he cannot read the directions and thus hasn't even started the assignment - we do not treat them the same, regardless of the behavioral similarity. Any intervention that treats dissimilar problems with similar behavioral outcomes the same is not only unfair but destined to fail.
Eliminating zero tolerance policies is a hard sell because the concept is simple to understand, sounds tough, and gives the impression...